Search results

Don Slater

materiality based in the object–sign distinction are generally not properly 96 Don Slater social or historical accounts at all: they are propounded in relation to ethical, philosophical and methodological concerns. What is required is a more adequate social ontology: an account of what I will call ‘processes of materialisation’, of the social processes by which things come to be treated as things in the social world – whether they are commodities, brands, technologies, or information. From this perspective, ‘materiality’ is not a matter of physicality but rather of what

in Market relations and the competitive process
Mark Harvey

experiences, common dependencies, corporate interlocks, and active creation of new social relations. Samuel Insull and his circle of collaborators socially constructed their firms in similar ways, and then promoted a system of industry governance and template diffusion. They drew upon their local and national contacts to re-frame the market and the political system in ways that pressured utility firms toward technical, organisational, economic and legal conformity’ (Granovetter and McGuire, 1998, p. 167). ‘The actor’s ontology is variable: his or her objectives, interests

in Market relations and the competitive process
Open Access (free)
Stan Metcalfe and Alan Warde

were, self-contained and self-possessed agents whose economic behaviour is subject to control by themselves and themselves alone. The ontological reality is at least as much one of interdependence within and beyond the economic field. The social behaviours of each agent condition, to differing degrees, the social and economic behaviour of all others. Yet, the majority of economists, and a substantial proportion of scholars in most of the other social sciences, use an isolated independent rational individual as the rudimentary building-block of explanations of the

in Market relations and the competitive process